Thiruvananthapuram, Jan 3 (NationPress) In a surprising development, a local court in the suburbs of Thiruvananthapuram found Antony Raju, a prominent legislator from Kerala’s Left Front and former Transport Minister, guilty in the notorious "underwear evidence tampering" case. This ruling marks the conclusion of a legal struggle that has lasted over three and a half decades.

The charges against Raju carry potential sentences ranging from a decade of imprisonment to life behind bars. The prosecution is urging the Chief Judicial Magistrate's court to impose sentencing. If accepted, Raju and the co-defendants will be moved to prison.

Despite the verdict coming nearly 19 years after the charge sheet was filed, the original incident dates back 36 years. The first accused is court clerk Jose, with Raju as the second. This ruling comes almost a year after the Supreme Court, in November 2024, overturned a Kerala High Court decision that had dismissed the criminal proceedings against Raju.

The case originated in 1990 when Australian citizen Andrew Salvatore Cervelli was apprehended at Thiruvananthapuram airport for allegedly attempting to smuggle 61.5 grams of illegal substances hidden in his underwear. At that time, Raju was a young lawyer beginning his political journey and represented Cervelli.

The trial court sentenced Cervelli to 10 years in prison. However, in a twist, the Kerala High Court later acquitted him, citing that the underwear presented as evidence was too small for him, casting significant doubt on the validity of the prosecution's argument.

Cervelli eventually returned to Australia. Years later, the investigation was re-opened following information from the Australian National Central Bureau, leading to a request for a probe into the alleged evidence tampering.

This prompted the filing of a criminal case against Raju and a court clerk in 1994. After a lengthy investigation lasting 12 years, the Assistant Commissioner of Police submitted a charge sheet in 2006 at the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Thiruvananthapuram, accusing Raju of criminal conspiracy, fraud, dishonestly inducing property delivery, and causing evidence disappearance.

Raju contested the proceedings, asserting that the disputed evidence was under the court's jurisdiction at the time, and only the court could act under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, claiming that the police had no authority to investigate or file a charge sheet in such matters, which he argued rendered the proceedings invalid.

While the High Court accepted this defense, the Supreme Court disagreed, reinstating the prosecution and paving the way for a verdict that could lead to significant consequences for Raju.